Masaniello, The Pope, And The Devil

Today he would have good chances as a priest: Masaniello.

I would like to write two lines about the ways I see this man, Jorge Bergoglio, disgracefully elected to guide the Bride of Christ.

The amount of heretical statements, the arrogance, the persecution of a good Catholic order, the enmity with all kind of devout Catholicism, the continuous propaganda against Catholicism, the commingling with perverts and the assorted scandals persuade any sensible thinking Catholic that this is not a decent person, and not worthy of the habit. A good man, he ain't.

There remain, then, only three possibilities:

1. A blithering idiot

2. An evil man, willingly siding with the devil.

3. An opportunistic, faithless, self-serving scoundrel.

Hypothesis 1 seems untenable to me. Whilst it can happen that a perfect idiot makes a brilliant career (former Italian President Pertini comes to mind; a man who in his shameless and senseless populism had many traits in common with Francis, and a whining socialist with an extremely comfortable life like him), I would say that this generally happens when a useful idiot is required. Pertini fulfilled his role beautifully, being a former partisan without the embarrassment of a functioning brain, and being thus apt to be used as “symbolic” but harmless figure. But I doubt this was the case for Bergoglio, because barring extreme luck you don't get at the head of a seminary, and then bishop and archbishop and Cardinal, without being an expert in moving along the corridors of Church powers; not unless you are, perhaps, a very saintly man, which in this case does clearly not apply.

Hypothesis 2 also seems, to me, not very realistic. The way I see things, a truly evil man would go at his work in a smarter way. He would, in other words, be very attentive to present a credible facade, and to make it difficult to see the self-serving and the deception. He would do so, because he knew he has a mission, to which he must sacrifice short-term advantage. I cannot imagine any evil, but thinking man behaving in any other way.

Another element is Francis' cowardice. A truly evil Pope would attack his Enemy in his most orthodox troops: the SSPX. Francis accurately avoids the conflict, and is content with kicking those he can kick without fear of retaliation: the FFI. This is not the thinking of one devoted to evil. This is the thinking of one devoted to himself.

I tend strongly for hypothesis 3, because I see the very careless way with which Bergoglio proceeds in his work of destruction; the perfect lack of interest today for what he has said yesterday; the senseless way in which he embarrasses the Vatican PR machine, forced to expose his own childishness and mediocrity for all who have eyes to see; his ability to say everything and its contrary according to whom he has in front of him; his utter defiance of everything that stays in the way of his own self-aggrandisement, from liturgical rules to sexual moral.

Francis is like a child never able to resist the cake offered to him, even if he knows there will be stomach ache to pay for that. As long as he gets a constant supply of cake and the stomach ache is manageable, he will be fine.

But again, in doing so he reveals his game, and alienates a number of people big enough to, so much is clear, utterly stain his own pontificate after him. The number of people who do not swallow the lie of the humble pope is already far too big to call the policy authentically successful. An evil Pope would be desperate at the ridicule, and would do his outmost to win or confuse the prize souls, the true believers. This one is content with the mediocre: the homosexuals, the adulterers, the infidels, the conformists, and the outright stupid.

For a willingly evil Pope, this one is an outright disaster. But for one who has lost the faith and only thinks in terms of masses applauding him, the strategy is the right one.

Who cares for the Church. Who cares for a judgment he does not think will ever come. Who cares for the approval of the smartest and most respected six or even ten percent. The mob is with him. There's fame in quantity. That's good enough.

Someone might, at this point, make an exercise in reverse thinking: “But you see, Mundabor: Bergoglio's evil genius is proved by his cunning plan to appear a self-absorbed simpleton!”

Hhhmmm. I don't think it works. No evil genius ever consistently behaved like an idiot, though an evil genius may have an interest in looking weak or inoffensive as long as he is not in power. But this one can do pretty much as he pleases, and he can't manage to fool anyone with an alert brain.

Also please think of this: an evil man would go at his work of destruction slowly, carefully, methodically; avoiding the obvious conflict with Catholicism as he slowly gnaws at it; confusing the most alert minds with a very careful steering of the Barque towards rocks very far in the distance whilst he gives numerous and solid examples of true orthodoxy. He would not, methink, behave like a drunken sailor all the time, and happily relying on the mediocrity or stupidity of his own sailors.

This Pope is too bad, too obvious, too self-absorbed, too vulgar, even too stupid to be given the rank of evil genius faking mediocrity. What you see is what you have: a man who sought in the habit a life of economic security in a respected profession, deprived of any class or manners or intellectual refinement; whose theological education can only be described as a joke; and who cannot express a deep thought to save his life, heck, cannot even say three phrases in a row that truly make sense. A deeply boorish, arrogant man, who has discovered that a show of “humility” dupes enough idiots to serve him well in life, and has followed this line of conduct for many decades now. A man whose only love and interest in life is himself, and therefore finds it entirely natural to, say, board a bus or be driven in a Ford Focus, if this promises the much greater personal satisfaction of self-aggrandisement.

Think of him in this way, and you have a photograph of his man that is, in my view, very accurate. This is consistent with the off-the-cuff rubbish he finds so difficult to avoid, the continuous contradictions, the constant desire to please, the utter lack of care for what even his press secretary thinks of him, the utter disinterest for Truth, the defiance of scandal, the doubling of the scandal whenever this promises a clapping audience, the apparent sacrifices – one entire summer in Rome occupying an entire floor of a hotel! The humbleness of that! -, the anti-Catholic rubbish like the offence to the Blessed Virgin, told to the masses just because it sounded good on the day, and all the rest.

The brutal truth is, if you ask me, that a kind of less gifted Cola Di Rienzo, or – far better said – a kind of better educated and better situated Masaniello was made Pope; but a Pope can't be disposed of as easily as the other two. A Pope will stay there and afflict us for as long as the Lord, in His wisdom, decides that we should be punished. Pray God that no further Masaniellos follow this one.

We are talking of evil geniuses here. At times, someone from the mob, with some cunning ability to sniff the wind and to move among deciders, and with a good nose for what people want to hear, can reach positions of preeminence.

Bergoglio is, clearly, ecclesiastical mob. Pope Masaniello, if you like. A boor in white.

But authentically, willfully, evil? A man planning the destruction of the Church, and seeing in it the aim of his Papacy? I don't think so.



Posted on July 25, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Mundabor,
    the argument you present, as I understand it, seems to hinge on three main contentions:
    First, that an evil pope would be much more circumspect (building up a strong cover of orthodoxy etc.) But Francis is very overt in his hererodoxy. Therefore hypothesis 2 is false.
    Second, that an evil pope would confront the enemy (authentic Catholicism) where it is strongest and most orthodox (that is, SSPX). But Francis concentrates on easy targets (FFI) instead, revealing cowardice. Therefore hypothesis 2 is false.
    Third, that an evil pope would act much smarter in general, hiding his true colors. But Francis’ behavior is just too stupid. He consistently acts like an idiot and is very often ridiculed, which a devilish genius would never do. Therefore hypothesis 2 is false.

    To the first argument I answer that an evil pope would be just as circumspect as necessary, but not more. The success of an evil pope would be measured, firstly, in the amount and quality of souls he misleads, and secondly, how far he misleads them. Now, in normal times, an evil pope would have to be very careful, as you say. Any deviation from orthodoxy would be noticed by clergy, theologians and laity. He would quickly lose any credibility as Catholic Pope, thereby losing the ability to lead more souls astray. But we do not live in normal times. Who, apart from the tiny minority of traditionalists, actually notices that Francis does not represent authentic Catholicism? After fifty years of preparation at and after Vatican II, a truly evil pope can rely on a very thin cover of orthodoxy, because most souls could not differentiate between orthodoxy and heresy anyway. The fact that almost all Catholics regard Francis’ words and actions as Catholic, absolutely destroys argument 1 against hypothesis 2.

    To the second argument I answer that in any war, you do not necessarily confront the enemy where he is strongest, but where he is weakest. Why would you attack the heavily defended fortress (SSPX), if you could simply take all the cities, forts and towns the enemy has left almost undefended for decades? Why risk losing a battle? Francis is strengthening the hold of the devil over the temporal side of the Church. He is saturating the hierarchy with loyal servants who can be counted on to lead souls to hell for decades. He almost ensures somebody like himself as his successor. He confuses the faithful with his heresies, but prevents them from recognizing his true nature by teaching orthodoxy, sometimes, very occasionally, when nobody but faithful Catholics are listening. He is no coward; but his master is a strategist, a general, a chess player. He knows when to take risks, and when not to.
    Argument 2 does not hold up, then. Pope Francis does not act like a coward, but like a good strategist. He makes sure his side controls almost all the territory, almost all the souls, and the authentic Catholic side is left with traditionalists who are few and far between, and the SSPX which is as easily demonized as any tiny minority in the eyes of the vast majority of souls this man intentionally leads to damnation.

    To the third argument I answer that most of the world, including most Catholics who still go to Mass, do not see him as an idiot who is constantly and justly ridiculed. They see him as a likeable reformer who finally breaks with unnecessary medieval traditions and inhibitions about sex, marriage, the sacraments and everything else. An evil pope would act so that the maximum number of souls are deceived. As almost all Catholics are deceived by him, I do not see argument 3 as convincing in the least.

    In summary, I see Francis as a thoroughly evil man – maybe not a genius, but certainly above average intelligence, who is a schemer, and someone who instinctively knows exactly how many doses of orthodoxy are needed to keep almost all Catholics from recognizing his true nature, while at the same time staying right at the edge of what is currently possible for the evil side. Sometimes he overdoes his heresy a little (he is not perfect), but in general, he is very shrewd in his application of poison to the hearts, minds and souls of modern Catholics. As much poison as possible; as much Catholicism as necessary. An evil Pope even twenty years ago would have had to be much more careful with the poison, but this is unnecessary today. There is no outcry against Francis among the wider Catholic audience, as opposed to the tiny minority of very conservative or traditionalist outcasts.

    • I do not follow the arguments.

      Catholicism is in a dismal state. This means that many are going to be lost anyway. A Pope merely administering the decline seems to me rather a “business as usual” Pope than a pope wilfully choosing Satan.

      The same goes for your other argument. The Devil is certainly now most interested in the tiny minority of those who keep the banner high, as he will go for the banner bearers as in every war.

      If the devil simply wants people to forget what Catholicism is, I am sorry to say a JP II is more than sufficient for that, and will allow him a huge harvest among the slow-witted multitude. Then Satan can see him go to heaven with a quiet satisfaction: the devil will always be ready to lose a few if he can get much more.

      But a pope truly working for him would attack the elite troops that can change the course of the battle, not the mass of deserters going to him anyway.


  2. greatpretender51

    This papacy typifies the VII papacies: they are just popularity contests, not vicars of holiness, discipline and Tradition. So of course they must all be sainted, because they are just so darned popular. And of course popularity contests require enormous egos….I know you don’t like so-called conspiracy theories, Mundabor, but Bergoglio, while not himself intent on planning the destruction of the Church, may well be the tool of those who are. How many Masonic lodges are operating within the Vatican? Abp. Lefebvre, Fr. Gruner and Fr. Malachi Martin all referred to this. I believe the number is 4.

  3. Sadly and shockingly, a majority of Catholics think he is good, accepting what they are told by Media, bishops, priests. There seems to be a sizeable number of people who know he is doing objectively evil things but who pretend otherwise.

  4. I agree on almost everything here, I know Bergoglio and his antics since the early 90s and he’s not a genius at all, he is cunning and sly but not a genius, no way. He is just a typical peronist resentful and childish attention getter. Lately some of the corrupt minions of the insane atheist Mrs. Kirchner visited Bergoglio (he constantly receive peronist scum since march 2012) and they have been saying that the pope declared his support for all the policies of Mrs. Kirchner (surely gay “marriage included) and practically said that she is a saint. No one from the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires nor Vatican press staff bothered to deny what these corrupts are telling here. It’s very sad that corrupt peronists that turned this country into a living hell of slums , homosexuality and crime are seemingly the spokemen of jorge the menace.. privately they even boast that the Pope does what she wants, remember the embarrasing episode of the fake and then authentic letter from Bergoglio to Mrs. Kircher saluting her for the argentine national day and saying how wonderful she is: a poorly redacted letter, with inapropiate familiarity and ortographic errors that was denounced as fake by the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (¿how could the pople write such ugly letter?) but later the same priests had to acknowledge the ugly letter was written by Jorge the menace.

  5. Agree with your assessment. Lucifer is using the absurdist Bergoglio to sow confusion, division and rot within the Church. Bergoglio is not a conscious, knowing agent of the Evil One.

  6. In this issue , as our Toto’ famously said , ‘ Una domanda sorge spontanea ‘ ( ‘ A question arouses spontaneously ‘ in my macaroni English ) . If Bergoglio is like a child , WHO has ‘ appointed ‘ him in the early sixties to a priest , then to a Bishop , then to an Archbishop , then has organized the sponsorship for him to a Cardinal and in the end to Pope ? . Who were these men – toddlers as intellectual faculties ? Sometimes I’d like to see their faces and read their curriculum vitae. Probably we could discover some interesting facts about the stellar ecclesiastical careers of bergoglini , maradiaghini & Co , and the future of the gerarchical Church waiting for us .

    • I would not say he is a child. Again, he must have the ability to move along corridors. His populist drive certainly was the rationale behind some of his advancements, as we live in such stupid times that riding a bus must make one a better bishop in the eyes of some. I also notice he tries not to make powerful enemies (the SSPX), and is ready to support those movement who are supported by a lot of people (the Charismatics).
      This is a mediocre intelligence with a keen sense of what’s good for him, and no shame at all in pursuing it.

%d bloggers like this: